These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Great Ice Mining Interdiction: Not so Great

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#761 - 2013-08-24 18:25:27 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I don't see where suicide ganking fits risk more than it fits cost.


it doesn't matter which it fits more.

time to do the playing rather than the talking.


And that's why you see it is a risk as opposed to as a cost =)

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#762 - 2013-08-24 18:27:16 UTC
Kijo Rikki wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


So now you have a cost assessment for loss at 20-30%. Once you remove any sort of sense of danger you eliminate risk and can intelligently assign a cost to it and that's it.


That's not how it works, buddy. Just because I am willing to risk losing everything 20-30% of the time does not remove the sense of danger or remove the fact that I am taking a risk. As a nullsec player, this is my life, I lose ships all the time. There has never, not once, been a single loss where I didn't feel a sense of danger. I undock knowing full well I may lose my ship, and by undocking I accept that fact, but that has never removed any sense of danger, unease or tension I have felt. I have never thought once while going into structure that this was merely a cost of doing business and shrugged it off. And whether or not I chose to accept a risk doesn't suddenly make a risk not a risk.

To apply this to another argument you have made, I personally think 20-30% is an acceptable risk, but Scaredy McGee thinks even 1 loss is too much and is an unacceptable risk, but Swinging Balls McClellan doesn't care, he could lose 100% of the time and it is acceptable. Since not 100% of the people agree, who is right? By McClellans lead, do we all just write it off as cost, or do we go by McGee's example and say every single loss is a risk?

Personally, I say McGee, only because it doesn't really matter what is acceptable to anyone. What matters is, did you buy something with the intention of making a profit and the chance of making that profit is not a guarantee? Then there is risk involved, always. A gamble, as I recall you claimed it was, but we all know gambling is a fancy way of saying taking risks.

Anywho, enjoyed our debates, but I must leave for now. Feel free to reply, I will return later to respond if necessary.



This is why the statement "More generalized in the field of economics, cost is a metric that is totaling up as a result of a process or as a differential for the result of a decision.[1] Hence cost is the metric used in the standard modeling paradigm applied to economic processes." would hold true moreso than trying to call it risk when considering suicide ganks for profit.

Have a good one o/

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#763 - 2013-08-24 18:40:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Mallak Azaria
Murk Paradox wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:


That's exactly like asking how we profit from ice interdictions.



"Like"... uh, you second guess people a lot don't you?

It's a pretty straight forward question.


It was a pretty straight forward answer.



But you didn't answer.


The answer was in the statement, but apparently you missed it. However, good job on hijacking the thread with the use of feigned ignorance.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#764 - 2013-08-24 20:10:01 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Quote:


Well if its risk free then you guys aren't doing your job well enough. Maybe you should be using battlecruisers to gank miners to make a point.


Please point out where I said mining has no risk.


It wasn't you in particular but someone on your side did say mining had less risk than ganking.

Do you agree or no?

I mean its possibly my mistake for assuming that everyone that it taking the one side has different opinion on it.

I mean I did ask a few gankers in various chats and most of them said they felt they risked less than the miners in the ganking or otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#765 - 2013-08-24 21:24:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Captain Tardbar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Quote:


Well if its risk free then you guys aren't doing your job well enough. Maybe you should be using battlecruisers to gank miners to make a point.


Please point out where I said mining has no risk.


It wasn't you in particular but someone on your side did say mining had less risk than ganking.

Do you agree or no?

I mean its possibly my mistake for assuming that everyone that it taking the one side has different opinion on it.

I mean I did ask a few gankers in various chats and most of them said they felt they risked less than the miners in the ganking or otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

The only reason that there is risk in highsec mining is because of other people, other miners present a minor risk with Orca supported fleets, getting to a belt and cherry picking before someone else can etc, but the main source of risk is gankers.

The risk that gankers present can be mitigated with properly fitted ships, or using insured, throwaway, T1 ships that are cheap enough to pay for themselves within a couple of hours. It can be mitigated further still by actually using tools like standings, local and overview tabs to enhance your awareness of what's happening around you.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#766 - 2013-08-24 22:29:32 UTC
So has the interdiction failed and we need to nerf gankers more yet?

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#767 - 2013-08-24 22:31:12 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Quote:


Well if its risk free then you guys aren't doing your job well enough. Maybe you should be using battlecruisers to gank miners to make a point.


Please point out where I said mining has no risk.


It wasn't you in particular but someone on your side did say mining had less risk than ganking.

Do you agree or no?

I mean its possibly my mistake for assuming that everyone that it taking the one side has different opinion on it.

I mean I did ask a few gankers in various chats and most of them said they felt they risked less than the miners in the ganking or otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

The only reason that there is risk in highsec mining is because of other people, other miners present a minor risk with Orca supported fleets, getting to a belt and cherry picking before someone else can etc, but the main source of risk is gankers.

The risk that gankers present can be mitigated with properly fitted ships, or using insured, throwaway, T1 ships that are cheap enough to pay for themselves within a couple of hours. It can be mitigated further still by actually using tools like standings, local and overview tabs to enhance your awareness of what's happening around you.


It can be mitigated, but if 15 catalysts (or equivalent ships) decide to gank a mining ship, there is little doubt in the outcome.

You can watch local and standings, but if I took my freshly made alt who has a standings of 0 and is in an NPC corp and decided to use a battlecruiser to gank a tanked mack, there is little they can do about it.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#768 - 2013-08-24 22:44:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Captain Tardbar wrote:

It can be mitigated, but if 15 catalysts (or equivalent ships) decide to gank a mining ship, there is little doubt in the outcome.

You can watch local and standings, but if I took my freshly made alt who has a standings of 0 and is in an NPC corp and decided to use a battlecruiser to gank a tanked mack, there is little they can do about it.

You're assuming of course that they'll pick a tanked ship when there are multiple untanked ones in the same system, a lot of them use a scout to pinpoint the untanked and provide a warpin.

Unless you've really pissed someone off, or have bling fitted your ship, they'll go for the easier targets, 15 catalysts are usually far better employed ganking multiple untanked targets than a single tanked one.

I'd also like to see your freshly rolled alt who can use a battlecruiser for ganking, while a fresh alt can fly a Gnosis, it can't do diddlysquat with it due to the lack of important skills.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#769 - 2013-08-24 23:03:57 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:

It can be mitigated, but if 15 catalysts (or equivalent ships) decide to gank a mining ship, there is little doubt in the outcome.

You can watch local and standings, but if I took my freshly made alt who has a standings of 0 and is in an NPC corp and decided to use a battlecruiser to gank a tanked mack, there is little they can do about it.

You're assuming of course that they'll pick a tanked ship when there are multiple untanked ones in the same system, a lot of them use a scout to pinpoint the untanked and provide a warpin.

Unless you've really pissed someone off, or have bling fitted your ship, they'll go for the easier targets, 15 catalysts are usually far better employed ganking multiple untanked targets than a single tanked one.

I'd also like to see your freshly rolled alt who can use a battlecruiser for ganking, while a fresh alt can fly a Gnosis, it can't do diddlysquat with it due to the lack of important skills.


I don't know. I know someone who ganked a skiff before just to see if they could do it.

It doesn't matter how tanked you are... Its possible to gank any mining barge.

And I suppose it is a misnomer about what a freshly rolled alt is. I am thinking of a character sitting in station that isn't doing other than training for a month or two. If you are thinking about a week old character, then it is unlikley they will be able to gank in a catalyst. I am just saying that people have the ability to gank you without being -10 sec status. You could be using tags to make it to 0 if you can afford it.

What I am trying to say, that if the random number generator doesn't like you (or if someone wants to ruin your day) then they can without warning and there is nothing you can do about it.

You can make it less likley, but its still a possibility.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Kijo Rikki
Killboard Padding Services
#770 - 2013-08-24 23:08:24 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Kijo Rikki wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


So now you have a cost assessment for loss at 20-30%. Once you remove any sort of sense of danger you eliminate risk and can intelligently assign a cost to it and that's it.


That's not how it works, buddy. Just because I am willing to risk losing everything 20-30% of the time does not remove the sense of danger or remove the fact that I am taking a risk. As a nullsec player, this is my life, I lose ships all the time. There has never, not once, been a single loss where I didn't feel a sense of danger. I undock knowing full well I may lose my ship, and by undocking I accept that fact, but that has never removed any sense of danger, unease or tension I have felt. I have never thought once while going into structure that this was merely a cost of doing business and shrugged it off. And whether or not I chose to accept a risk doesn't suddenly make a risk not a risk.

To apply this to another argument you have made, I personally think 20-30% is an acceptable risk, but Scaredy McGee thinks even 1 loss is too much and is an unacceptable risk, but Swinging Balls McClellan doesn't care, he could lose 100% of the time and it is acceptable. Since not 100% of the people agree, who is right? By McClellans lead, do we all just write it off as cost, or do we go by McGee's example and say every single loss is a risk?

Personally, I say McGee, only because it doesn't really matter what is acceptable to anyone. What matters is, did you buy something with the intention of making a profit and the chance of making that profit is not a guarantee? Then there is risk involved, always. A gamble, as I recall you claimed it was, but we all know gambling is a fancy way of saying taking risks.

Anywho, enjoyed our debates, but I must leave for now. Feel free to reply, I will return later to respond if necessary.



This is why the statement "More generalized in the field of economics, cost is a metric that is totaling up as a result of a process or as a differential for the result of a decision.[1] Hence cost is the metric used in the standard modeling paradigm applied to economic processes." would hold true moreso than trying to call it risk when considering suicide ganks for profit.

Have a good one o/


But the profit is not a guarantee. It is a gamble, a risk. You are essentially taking your chips and putting them on the table, whether you win or not, the money is gone into the pool, and you have risked your investment on the chance to win the pot. The whole reason for putting together the ship was on the chance to blow up and then collect the loot from your victim, and if that fails then your investment failed to pan out.

This is not the same as fuel, when you buy it you expect it to perform its function without fail and you get your money's worth. Same as office supplies, groceries, paying rent, paying employees, paying utilities, and other costs. None of those involve any perceivable risks. While I will concede that purchasing a ganking catalyst can be considered a cost from an economic standpoint, I cannot and will not concede that it is not a risk from the same economic standpoint because the purchase was made on the hopes that it will perform a function which has no guarantee of success.

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 
Kijo Rikki
Killboard Padding Services
#771 - 2013-08-24 23:12:31 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
I'm helpless


No, you're not. A fully aligned, 75% speed ship should never get pointed by any ship coming on grid or decloaking. Making your own safe's or using celestials to stay aligned to and in range of your target are not out of your realm of capabilities, neither is occasionally pumping your d-scan to check for inbound ships (hint, catalyst on the d-scan? might want to stay frosty), nor is keeping a record of hostiles and friendlies and watching for a suspicious change in local, and moving to a lower traffic system to make this activity easier to manage.

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#772 - 2013-08-24 23:28:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Captain Tardbar wrote:

I don't know. I know someone who ganked a skiff before just to see if they could do it.

It doesn't matter how tanked you are... Its possible to gank any mining barge.
Any ship that can be normally used in highsec, excluding grandfathered ships, by a player is gankable, tanked or not, it's just a matter of doing the math. It's as true for a Battleship as it is for a Mackinaw, it's probably true for the grandfathered ships tbh, although impractical to execute. Your "any mining barge can be ganked" argument is moot, all ships are gankable, therefore working as intended. Unless of course you're suggesting that mining vessels are a special case, and should be invulnerable to ganks?

Quote:
What I am trying to say, that if the random number generator doesn't like you (or if someone wants to ruin your day) then they can without warning and there is nothing you can do about it.

You can make it less likley, but its still a possibility.
Risk Mitigation : A systematic reduction in the extent of exposure to a risk and/or the likelihood of its occurrence. Also called risk reduction. In Eve it means to make yourself a tougher nut to crack than the other guy.

As an example, if you're in a group of, say 7, gankers and there's 5 ships in a belt; a tanked Procurer, a tanked Mackinaw, 2 untanked Mackinaws and a Retriever, a scout will have generally already ship scanned them, the Retriever and untanked Mackinaws are going to be the first to die, because the group can kill all three with ease before Concord intervene, the two tanked ships individually require more of the gang to kill and thus become undesirable targets when there's easier prey to be had.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#773 - 2013-08-24 23:39:55 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Any ship that can be normally used in highsec, excluding grandfathered ships, by a player is gankable.



Does this mean we can now call Chribba "Grampy" ? Big smile

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#774 - 2013-08-25 00:02:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Any ship that can be normally used in highsec, excluding grandfathered ships, by a player is gankable.



Does this mean we can now call Chribba "Grampy" ? Big smile

You failed to complete the holy trinity of the most sacred chant, for penance you must offer up the following prayer
Chribba's Prayer wrote:

Our Chribba, who art in the belt.
Hallowed be thy Veldnaught.
Thy ore be mined.
Hidden belts we find.
In 0.0 as it is in Empire.
Give us this day our daily Veldspar.
And forgive us our ore theft,
as we forgive those who thieve against us.
And lead us not into gate camps,
but deliver us from pirates.
For thine is the ore,
and the ice, and the moons,
for ever and ever.
Amen.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#775 - 2013-08-25 05:44:53 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Quote:


Well if its risk free then you guys aren't doing your job well enough. Maybe you should be using battlecruisers to gank miners to make a point.


Please point out where I said mining has no risk.


It wasn't you in particular but someone on your side did say mining had less risk than ganking.

Do you agree or no?

I mean its possibly my mistake for assuming that everyone that it taking the one side has different opinion on it.

I mean I did ask a few gankers in various chats and most of them said they felt they risked less than the miners in the ganking or otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.


High sec miners do have a lot less risk than suicide gankers. For example, mining barges dont get blown up by concord at the end of every cycle of their strips with a chance of getting no ore. ( the miners equivilant of failing to kill the target)

Suicide ganking has more risks and punishments than any other activity in EVE and quite frankly the people who think it is a riskless activity simply have no clue what they are talking about.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#776 - 2013-08-25 06:06:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
baltec1 wrote:

High sec miners do have a lot less risk than suicide gankers. For example, mining barges dont get blown up by concord at the end of every cycle of their strips with a chance of getting no ore. ( the miners equivilant of failing to kill the target)

Suicide ganking has more risks and punishments than any other activity in EVE and quite frankly the people who think it is a riskless activity simply have no clue what they are talking about.


Before CCP made belts into anoms, there used to be an annoyingly frequent bug.
When the ore hold (and in ancient past, when cargo hold) were almost full, the last cycle could yield zero blocks. This was much frequent in case the miner would initiate warp few seconds before the cycle would complete. Even if the cycle would complete seconds before the warp actually happened, it'd not bring any ice.

Also, in case of network issues, the ship would continue digging, lasers cycling with no apparent problem yet no cycle would come till a relog. This is a general EvE issue, ice miners would just be expecially affected by it due to their long cycle times.

So, yes, there was a chance of getting no ore. P

Edit:

Again, back in 2009 when I was a new player, ISDs would indoctrinate every new player in rookie chat into mining and so I laboriously bought a retriever and went to mine in the vicinity of Hek.
Every rats spawn was a little drama, as in the most usual 0.5-0.6 Minmatar sec the rats would put the retriever in deep armor in a couple of seconds, before I could warp away. Drones would not do them anything before I had to run like hell.

So, at least for new players, mining used to be risky too.

Too bad all of this changed and now mining is all the same as botting imo.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Dave Stark
#777 - 2013-08-25 08:14:34 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Every rats spawn was a little drama, as in the most usual 0.5-0.6 Minmatar sec the rats would put the retriever in deep armor in a couple of seconds, before I could warp away. Drones would not do them anything before I had to run like hell.

So, at least for new players, mining used to be risky too.

Too bad all of this changed and now mining is all the same as botting imo.


a week old character in a retriever with 4 t1 drones can, and will, absolutely destroy any high sec rat spawn without issue or even needing to be at the PC. rats are only an issue in 0.6 and below for players younger than a week. how many players fall in to that category? a negligable amount since most that young tend to be in 1.0-0.7 where 2 t1 drones can easily deal with the spawns (maybe a dip in to armour but nowhere near hull)

calling it risky for new players is laughable.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#778 - 2013-08-25 09:22:32 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Every rats spawn was a little drama, as in the most usual 0.5-0.6 Minmatar sec the rats would put the retriever in deep armor in a couple of seconds, before I could warp away. Drones would not do them anything before I had to run like hell.

So, at least for new players, mining used to be risky too.

Too bad all of this changed and now mining is all the same as botting imo.


a week old character in a retriever with 4 t1 drones can, and will, absolutely destroy any high sec rat spawn without issue or even needing to be at the PC. rats are only an issue in 0.6 and below for players younger than a week. how many players fall in to that category? a negligable amount since most that young tend to be in 1.0-0.7 where 2 t1 drones can easily deal with the spawns (maybe a dip in to armour but nowhere near hull)

calling it risky for new players is laughable.


Today's retriever <> 2009 retriever.
Minmatar space <> Caldari space.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#779 - 2013-08-25 12:15:08 UTC
This might go better if goons didn't use 7 ships to gank an exhumer that only needs 2 for the job.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#780 - 2013-08-25 12:27:11 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
This might go better if goons didn't use 7 ships to gank an exhumer that only needs 2 for the job.


They are more about quantity than quality Blink

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials